Slashdot Mirror

Galileo's publications on the heliocentric model were censored by the church. Even around this time, people used passages from the Bible to argue that the earth was flat and immovable. These are the same passages that are used by the Flat Earth believers, which I'm sure you've seen already.

By the way, "scientific" observation (pre-classical greek scientists, indian scientists (200s?), somewhat recent chinese scientists {1600s?}, etc) has been used to explain that the earth is flat too. Poor instruments (human eyes), poor observations (ground level), poor model (earth far larger than assumed), ...

Yes, and our knowledge was updated when it was proven wrong. It's a contrast to the unchanging word of god which requires 'interpretation' for it to make sense.

The fact that god has not returned to clarify things now that we have a greater level of sophistication says nothing. My understanding is that he is more of a scorekeeper right now, not an active player.

What is your understanding of god acting as a scorekeeper based on? Scorekeeper of what, anyway?

Besides, what is the necessity, we are learning to figure it out. Perhaps that is part of the plan, our evolution? :-)

What was the necessity of god to speak in metaphor to the sheep herder about universal mechanics? It would have been much more useful for him to tell the sheep herder how to better care for his sheep! :P

When you start interpreting parts of the Bible to mean different things, you start abstracting the base of your faith. This allows you to extend the ideas of that god beyond what the holy book actually says and start making interpretations about god's personality, behavior, actions, and supposed plans for humanity. A lot of these things that you've mentioned, from him acting as a scorekeeper for some divine plan for us to him whispering truths about the universe in metaphor to a shepherd, are vague because they're based on that abstraction. You can't justify these particular beliefs of yours with passages in context, so they have to be invented through the 'interpretation'. This is something that god himself warns about; this passage is used by many different Christians to show that those who change the meaning of the Bible will be punished personally by their god.

The facts are only clear to you because you accept them on faith with no proof presented at all. Traitors get trials. We are not at war; George W. Bush called this a war, but declaring war isn't an authority granted to his post. Obama has kept the language but since he's in the same post it's irrelevant. Congress, who retains that authority, has not done so. It's okay to use the word for convenience but from a legal perspective it is wrong.

"We need more people like this guy wiped out, not less." Only the death of your enemies is worth contemplating. You have become them.

The facts are only clear to you because you accept them on faith with no proof presented at all. Traitors get trials. We are not at war; George W. Bush called this a war, but declaring war isn't an authority granted to his post. Obama has kept the language but since he's in the same post it's irrelevant. Congress, who retains that authority, has not done so. It's okay to use the word for convenience but from a legal perspective it is wrong.

"We need more people like this guy wiped out, not less." Only the death of your enemies is worth contemplating. You have become them.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm

See the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm

The constitution limits what the government can do, not what you can't do. However, the US Supreme Court has declared that the "Right to Privacy" is inherent from the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 9th & 14th Amendments.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privacy

If you invoke the Fifth in a criminal case, discussion STOPS. On the spot and there is NO further questioning allowed.

My understanding (IANAL) is somewhat different than that. It applies to a specific question, rather than questions in general. Generally witnesses are advised to plead the 5th to ALL questions, otherwise the simple pattern of what you are or are not willing to answer is as revealing as the answers themselves.

Mark Fuhrman's testimony from the OJ Simpson case.

The "the right to govern our own communities as an element of the right to community and local self-government" is a can of worms that will cause major issues for any large companies or companies that work in many jurisdictions.

Here is a site with many state laws that have been struck down due to their effect on interstate trade. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm

If every jurisdiction was allowed to make laws abut everything then the country would become a patchwork of sometime conflicting statutes. No company that works nation wide could deal with it.

Local self government has its limits. Should a local government be able to ban hazardous goods shipments(they can go around)? Should they be able to ban trucks built before 2005 for emission reasons? Think of the issues for a long haul trucker. At every state, county and municipal border he would have to check it see if he could take his load in the current truck through.

This whole issue seems to forget that DC is not a separate country. Everyone votes for representatives that go to DC. If you want a law that is controlled by the federal government changed the lobby your federal representative.

Supreme Court Rules Tennesseans Are Sentient Beings

All I'm saying is that the constitution protects free speech and lists no exceptions.

The constitution doesn't define free speech:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The constitution simply prohibited Congress from limiting the freedom of speech - as it was then understood.

It was never a license to libel or harass anyone.

The Absolutist Approach is most often associated with Justice Black, who held that the First Amendment meant exactly what it says: that Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of speech. Under this approach, the only question is whether the action in conduct is truly "speech" (and therefore protected) or "conduct" (and therefore subject to reasonable governmental regulation. Even absolutists such as Justice Black recognized that words might be so closely connected with producing a specific action (such as entering into a contract with a hitman or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater) as to be unprotected.

Introduction to the Free Speech Clause

Actually, government employees do have more rights when it comes to speech (due to the 1st amendment) than private employees do. They can't just say any old thing, but if their criticism of their employer or the town is found by the court to be "of public concern" it could be considered protected speech. This law actually probably is unconstitutional, particularly if it's very broad (it could be written in a way that only banned non-protected speech, but my guess is they didn't think it through that well).

Then it really comes down to whistleblower protection laws.

If you are a government employee, the 1st amendment actually does protect you to some degree. Your advice is absolutely correct if you're privately employed, but government employees have more protections when it comes to issues like this.

Actually, government employees do have more rights when it comes to speech (due to the 1st amendment) than private employees do. They can't just say any old thing, but if their criticism of their employer or the town is found by the court to be "of public concern" it could be considered protected speech. This law actually probably is unconstitutional, particularly if it's very broad (it could be written in a way that only banned non-protected speech, but my guess is they didn't think it through that well).

Why would you give such a convoluted address like

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law.umkc.edu%2Ffaculty%2Fprojects%2Fftrials%2Fconlaw%2Fwickard.html&rct=j&q=%22interstate%20commerce%22%20wheat%20quota&ei=b_ZBTdzgPIX4gAfj_umxAQ&usg=AFQjCNF7d9isNCMMNeYeQ__i98uHFPon2A&cad=rja

When you could have given the direct url of http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/wickard.html, or the better link at Wikipedia, which explains the case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

I'm too lazy to see if there is revenue sharing in that, but it is doesn't seem be to a good way to link.

Actually the official position of the Catholic Church...

Yeah I've made the same point many times before originally made by Pope John Paul II. So if I.D is not evolution how is what you are saying different? I said That's if you take Genesis literally, which proponents of I.D do.. Sure I can accept that no one knows if the Big Bang happened or not. Are you agreeing with me that I.D is not evolution and that the catholic church are not too keen on I.D, or are you trying to make a different point?

ID isn't blasphemous to Catholics because it's limiting God.

Well actually ID is quite offensive to some catholics. It's one thing to say it's wrong because it's not science and quite another to say it's offensive because it's blasphemous. You see science can also be looked on as a tool for discovering the nature of an unlimited universe much more amazing than any single group of people can conceive. Not everyone has the same beliefs as a stick shaking Evagelist.

ID is just wrong because A) it isn't science. B) it assumes taking the BIble literally.

You mean like if you take Genesis literally, which proponents of I.D do?

and so taking a specific translation and treating it as word-for-word literal truth is a simplistic and juvenile approach.

If you read the bible as a work of philosophy then it's hard to digest without reading it in context. Ignorance is the enemy so I do hope you're not directing that remark at me. It takes intelligence just to read the bible, which is a book about humanity, not science. You don't read the bible to gather knowledge, you read it to learn about human nature and hopefully accumulate some wisdom on the way.

I think you might want to look at the definition of exaggerating: take a look here for a start http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exaggerating. As to commodore64_love twisting facts, well you should look well at the volume of his posts and discern wether or not he does in fact routinely twist facts. Also you might want to consider the history of the issue. I suggest reading the trial of socratese http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/socrates/socrates.HTM .

We all knew this would happen again sooner or later, what with all these new anti-consumer copyright laws either already enacted or pending legislation around the world.

For those who don't remember, ASCAP threatens to sue girl scouts for exactly the same thing: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html

There is nothing ironic about the ruling. What the judges ruled was that the government could neither favour or discriminate against any particular religion. Therefore the government was able to provide the same benefit to pupils of religious schools as was available to pupils of other schools:

we must be careful, in protecting the citizens of New Jersey against state-established churches, to be sure that we do not inadvertently prohibit New Jersey from extending its general state law benefits to all its citizens without regard to their religious belief.

The same appears to apply in this case. The park is entitled to subsidies because a non-religous theme park, or one established by a different religion, would get the same subsidies in the same circumstances.

In many states (Including North Carolina), Emminent domain cannot be used to transfer property from one private entity to another. It can only be used for "Public Use" projects, i.e. roads, railroads, utility cooridors, etc.

While "Emminent Domain" may not be used, other means can by the gov. There was a case just a short while ago before the SCOTUS about private takings and such. Basically they seized the property so a developer could use it. They justified it by stating it would generate more tax revenue.

"The Court, on a 5 to 4 vote, held that a city's plan to condemn homes in a residential neighborhood and give the acreage to a private developer for $1 for a 99-year lease to create an upscale development did not violate the Fifth Amendment's requirement that takings of property be for "a public purpose." (Of course, as provided by the Fifth Amendment, the government had to provide "just compensation" for the taking.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/Kelo.html

States can ban the importation of anything they want to from other states (like fruit into California, etc) if they consider it dangerous

Sorry, that argument ain't gonna fly. If they're willing to throw their own garbage in a landfill, they can't argue that someone else's garbage is unsafe.

States can and do regulate commerce between entities with the state and entities outside the state all the time.

Clearly this power is not universal. Here's a good article that covers a wide variety of causes where state laws were struck down as unlawful based on the interstate commerce clause.

Incidentally, here's what appears to be the first case regarding garbage importation: PHILADELPHIA v. NEW JERSEY.

And to your first point, apparently the majority opinion agrees with me:

The New Jersey statute is not such a quarantine law. There has been no claim here that the very movement of waste into or through New Jersey endangers health, or that waste must be disposed of as soon and as close to its point of generation as possible. The harms caused by waste are said to arise after its disposal in landfill sites, and at that point, as New Jersey concedes, there is no basis to distinguish out-of-state waste from domestic waste. If one is inherently harmful, so is the other. Yet New Jersey has banned the former while leaving its landfill sites open to the latter.

Virginia businesses cannot buy alcohol from out of state; they must buy it from the state stores. How is that legal?

Ultimately, it comes down to, to quote the aforementioned case:

whether ch. 363 is basically a protectionist measure, or whether it can fairly be viewed as a law directed to legitimate local concerns, with effects upon interstate commerce that are only incidental.

Now, without reading the laws which control the sale of liquor, I can't speak to why those laws are upheld as legal. It may be that regulating the importation of alcohol, period, is held up as legal because there is a legitimate public safety concern. But I'm guessing at this point.

The real point is that, fundamentally, whether or not such statutes are legal varies on a case-by-case basis.

States can ban the importation of anything they want to from other states (like fruit into California, etc) if they consider it dangerous

Sorry, that argument ain't gonna fly. If they're willing to throw their own garbage in a landfill, they can't argue that someone else's garbage is unsafe.

States can and do regulate commerce between entities with the state and entities outside the state all the time.

Clearly this power is not universal. Here's a good article that covers a wide variety of causes where state laws were struck down as unlawful based on the interstate commerce clause.

Incidentally, here's what appears to be the first case regarding garbage importation: PHILADELPHIA v. NEW JERSEY.

And to your first point, apparently the majority opinion agrees with me:

The New Jersey statute is not such a quarantine law. There has been no claim here that the very movement of waste into or through New Jersey endangers health, or that waste must be disposed of as soon and as close to its point of generation as possible. The harms caused by waste are said to arise after its disposal in landfill sites, and at that point, as New Jersey concedes, there is no basis to distinguish out-of-state waste from domestic waste. If one is inherently harmful, so is the other. Yet New Jersey has banned the former while leaving its landfill sites open to the latter.

Virginia businesses cannot buy alcohol from out of state; they must buy it from the state stores. How is that legal?

Ultimately, it comes down to, to quote the aforementioned case:

whether ch. 363 is basically a protectionist measure, or whether it can fairly be viewed as a law directed to legitimate local concerns, with effects upon interstate commerce that are only incidental.

Now, without reading the laws which control the sale of liquor, I can't speak to why those laws are upheld as legal. It may be that regulating the importation of alcohol, period, is held up as legal because there is a legitimate public safety concern. But I'm guessing at this point.

The real point is that, fundamentally, whether or not such statutes are legal varies on a case-by-case basis.

you didn't happen to notice the military suppression of democracy activists exactly a year ago in iran?

the usa does plenty of evil in the world, and is full of bible thumping assholes, but this is its first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm

meanwhile, this is the beginning of iran's constitution:

Article 1

The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic justice, in the referendum of Farwardin 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic calendar, corresponding to Jamadi al-'Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic calendar (March 29 and 30, 1979], through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by the eminent marji' al-taqlid, Ayatullah al-Uzma Imam Khumayni.

Article 2

The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:

1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
4.the justice of God in creation and legislation;
5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam;
6.the exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God; in which equity, justice, political, economic, social, and cultural independence, and national solidarity are secured by recourse to:
1.continuous ijtihad of the fuqaha' possessing necessary qualifications, exercised on the basis off the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Ma'sumun, upon all of whom be peace;

http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/government/constitution-1.html

and this is a country where democracy has just been trumped by the revolutionary guards, where now you can wonder whether the country is a military autocracy or a theocracy. either way, officially, a bunch of grumpy old men interpret the will of god, somehow, and they now have their fingers on nuclear bombs. i don't care if you love the usa, hate the usa, love israel, hate israel, but a nuclear armed theocracy cum military autocracy should bother the hell out of you

but instead we have fools like you, who so hate the usa or israel, that they are willing to embrace an entity far far worse

friend: why can't you hate israel, hate the usa, AND hate iran?

why does your hatred of the usa and israel so blind your faculties that you wind up embracing a nuclear armed theocracy?

holy men who say they have a monopoly on interpretting the will of god, with nuclear weapons, isn't something that bothers you? no matter what the usa or israel does?

Since at least some of his medical conditions could be considered mental illnesses, that will probably be his defense.

In the federal system, it's become a stiff uphill climb:

Congress passed revisions in the defense embodied in the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, which reads:

"It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense."

The "irresistible impulse" is not a defense.

Under separate legislation, the burden of proof shifted to the defendant - to produce "clear and convincing evidence" of his incapacity and the expert witness is not permitted to lead the jury by expressing his own opinion. THE JOHN HINCKLEY TRIAL & ITS EFFECT ON THE INSANITY DEFENSE

1) From a PR perspective, I suppose jailing other countries crazy people is better than us bombing them

The only message the US gives a damn about is warning would-be hackers is that the hammer will come down if you break into its systems.

4) It makes his govt look like a US lapdog

When you are out of the government, defending McKinnon is easy. But the London tabloids won't be kind if the US refuses extradition of the UK's next highly politicized "fugitive."

Not that I think that the law is a good idea (I don't) -- but I do think you're confusing the right to privacy (which is questionable) with the right to anonymity (there is none).

In this case, the City of West Allis is a "government", not a "business", and its emergency dispatchers are government employees, not private employees in some sort of dispatching industry. The First Amendment has been held to apply to state and local governments since 1925, and applies to some extent even when the government is acting as employer.

In India, there's no Right to Privacy as strongly guaranteed under the US Constitution.

There is no such explicit right to privacy in the American Constitution:

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The question of whether the Constitution protects privacy in ways not expressly provided in the Bill of Rights is controversial. Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists. The Supreme Court, however, beginning as early as 1923 and continuing through its recent decisions, has broadly read the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee a fairly broad right of privacy that has come to encompass decisions about child rearing, procreation, marriage, and termination of medical treatment. Polls show most Americans support this broader reading of the Constitution. The Right of Privacy

Already posted this here once, but looks like you didn't read the earlier comments.

The Indian constitution does guarantee privacy and the courts have always upheld this principle.

In fact from what I understand, the US has less privacy controls in their constitution than India does.

Not a lawyer but found resources (site is cosmetically terrible but information rich) on some case histories in this sort of thing.

Probably the closest case to that is Morse v. Frederick in which students stood just off school property with a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS." Basically what it seems to come down to is that you have some first amendment rights as a minor in school unless your message contradicts stated school goals or hinders the learning process.

So the banner contradicted their anti-drug agenda and therefore it was ruled as okay to suspend them for the act. Similarly I guess a judge could interpret undermining a teacher's status as an authority figure to be an inhibition of the learning process in the facebook page. I don't agree with that ruling but this didn't seem to be addressed in the lengthy opinion piece presented above.

A classic case of a message not hindering the learning process was Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District in which black armbands were worn to protest the Vietnam war.

In high school some kids circulated a 'zine that was laden with four letter words and was distributed via a student's access to his mom's work's photocopying machine during after hours. We were aware that some of them had been confiscated and you got detention for profanity but since we never really attacked teachers, it never resulted in suspension or worse. During the 'vest craze' of the late nineties, I fashioned a vest out of duct tape and made "Old Navy Sucks, GAP Blows" out of duct tape letters on it. And I was allowed to wear it throughout the whole school day claiming it was a political message if anyone gave me grief. I actually recall being pretty disappointed at the lack of attention I was given for it. The school had some rule about profanity so if you wore a shirt with profanity you had to turn it inside out. I guess 'sucks/blows' wasn't foul enough.

Long story short: as a minor you have some free speech rights in school but not all of them. Any that violate the reason you're in school are restricted. Any that undermine the stated goals of your institution are restricted. I think it's sad that this gets escalated so much ... was the teacher really that insecure of themselves that they thought the Facebook group hurt them?

Whatever was going on in Utah needs to be looked at though. That story was downright disturbing. "Curbing the straight edge movement" was one of their school's stated goals?! Vegan statements were construed as 'straight edge'?! I must have missed something about the dangers of the straight edge movement and veganism because that smells like complete administrative bullshit from where I'm standing.

Perhaps you should reexamine what a "substantial nexus" is and how it is applied within the law.

Anyways, here are a few supreme court cases involving the exact same thing we are talking about.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/386/753/case.html
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/quill.html

You should note that ion both cases, the substantial nexus is cited but you are wrong in the Corporate headquarters. MSLI or Microsoft's licensing incorporation is not located in the state of Washington at all and is incorporated in Nevada with it's offices in Nevada (and other areas outside of the State of Washington). Because MSLI is owned by MSTF is non-important in this distinction because under current law, federal, state, and yes, even Washington State laws, ownership of a corporation does not directly imply operation of the corporation and they are viewed as two completely separate entities. This is evident from bankruptcy laws in which MSTF or MSLI could go bankrupt without imposing any liabilities on the other. This is even true within the state of Washington.

I got to admit, you have heart, you just do not have all the information or the ability to competently process it.

He's demonstrated the ability to deal with concepts in varying degrees, and to understand the difference between a *political* objection, and a doctrinal one.

From Galileo's recantation letter:

I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture [...] I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves:

Also, for some reason you fail to discuss the prelude to the whole debacle, when the Church officially condemned the Copernician doctrine, and notified Galileo of the fact.

Does the Church suppress science?

They explicitly threatened to burn him alive if he did not recant, specifically because his theories contradicted the official interpretation of scripture (that's the official justification as set out in the documents, including the letter above). Under what definition of "suppress" does this not count as "suppressing science"?

Even though he may publicly laud free inquiry and study, he simply dismisses any source which disagrees with his predisposed notions of the world.

That describes you to a T.

There are multiple interpretations of the Interstate Commerce Clause. By some interpretations, States do have limited rights to regulate commerce with other states. Also, there seem to be additional interpretations of the law for state-owned services (See the paragraph on "In United Haulers Assoc. v Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority (2007)".

See the following site a good summary of some of the debates.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm

"The Commerce Clause is a grant of power to Congress, not an express limitation on the power of the states to regulate the economy. At least four possible interpretations of the Commerce Clause have been proposed. First, it has been suggested that the Clause gives Congress the exclusive power to regulate commerce. Under this interpretation, states are divested of all power to regulate interstate commerce. Second, it has been suggested that the Clause gives Congress and the states concurrent power to regulate commerce. Under this view, state regulation of commerce is invalid only when it is preempted by federal law. Third, it has been suggested that the Clause assumes that Congress and the states each have their own mutually exclusive zones of regulatory power. Under this interpretation, it becomes the job of the courts to determine whether one sovereign has invaded the exclusive regulatory zone of the other. Finally, it has been suggested that the Clause by its own force divests states of the power to regulate commerce in certain ways, but the states and Congress retain concurrent power to regulate commerce in many other ways. This fourth interpretation, a complicated hybrid of two others, turns out to be the approach taken by the Court in its decisions interpreting the Commerce Clause."

So, uh, did you stop taking your meds, or go and leave yourself logged in or something? Idolizing John Wilkes Booth (who assassinated the U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and then apparently blogged about it) is typically a sign of libertarianism at least, or anarchism possibly. Asserting Booth was a patriot doesn't jibe with you wanting the big, bad, out of control states-rights-trampling, wasteful fraudulent and abusive Federal government to save your pathetic hind quarters from a big bad voluntarily formed privately owned profit seeking Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum worshipping corporation, now, does it?

> Limiting advertising is a blatant violation of the US Constitution. Duh. You can't do it.

You might want to check with the Supreme Court on that one. Granted, I don't always agree with their decisions, but commercial speech has LONG been more restricted than, say, political speech. In particular, the government has more leeway to restrict the time, place and manner that advertisements are allowed in (e.g. "you can't post advertisements on public property" or "you can't make deceptive advertisements" [1]).

In other words, leaving aside whether or not one interprets it as being in violation of the 1st Amendment, the government can and has done so.

Given that prohibiting "loud" advertisements would be a restriction on the manner of speech and that TV broadcasts are already regulated because the EM spectrum is considered public property, you would have to be a very clever lawyer with some fairly sympathetic judges to get this tossed out on Constitutional grounds.

And very clever lawyers? They would cite lots of case law, have tons of footnotes, and would not use the word "duh" (at least, not in public).[2]

[1] The Central Hudson test says that to decide whether commercial speech gets first amendment protection has the judge consider whether:
      1. The expression of commercial speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading.
      2. The asserted government interest is substantial.
      3. The regulation directly advances the asserted government interest.
      4. The regulation is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest.

[2] IANAL, but I know better than to make ad hoc pronouncements about the Constitution, as though its meaning were unambiguous and its wisdom infallible.

...All of these explanations are much more plausible ....

A court of law doesn't go by what's plausible, but what actually took place.

(... you assume that it's a trick...)
In court you don't assume, but provide evidence. YOU have to provide witnesses or other evidence. It is generally implausible for someone to rise from the dead, but the case of Jesus COULD be an exception. You could, if able, provide your own eyewitnesses who contradict the Gospels. Then the jury would have to decide whom to BELIEVE.

(...How many times has a court ever been convinced of a supernatural explanation...)
Courts are interested in evidence and testimony, not explanations.

(...What if ....)
Neither I nor courts are interested in "what if" questions. Courts deal with real events, almost always in the past..

(...Because they said so....)
But it is up to you, the opposition to bring evidence that shows the testimony, or in this case the deposition of the eyewitnesses is false.

(...Maybe specifically it DID happen to Jesus....)
That exactly is what the GOSPEL eyewitnesses assert. YOU, as the opposing party, must provide witnesses that actually were there as observers, who provide evidence that the Gospel witnesses are wrong. Remember, that the Gospel witnesses testify that they were there. You would also have to provide such eyewitnesses. Saying there is no supernatural will no fly in court.

For an essay on the evidence of the gospels look here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

It was written by one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He also wrote a big volume still used by lawyers and courts called "The Rules of Evidence". Before he researched the Gospels documents like a lawyer looks at testimony, he was an unbeliever, but came to believe after his examination of the gospel witnesses.

....Go read about the inconsistencies among just the four canonical Gospels...

That is just what Simon Greenleaf did, trying, as a lawyer to dismiss the Gospels as fabrications. You can read what he had to say here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

He was one of the founders of Harvard Law school and wrote a volume of books titled "The Rules of Evidence", which is still found on the shelves of lawyers and courts of law across this land.

...But your evidence is entirely within the pages of a single flawed book...

The person who wrote the volume of books titled: "The Rules of Evidence" would differ with you. You will find this book in every court of the land and in almost every lawyer's office. What he outlines in these volumes is still followed by all courts of law. He examines the four Gospels, applying these rules. You can read here what he found:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

This man, named Simon Greenleaf, was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. I think he knew a little bit more about evidence and its presentation than you do.

Some scholars believe that the book of Luke and the book of Acts, written to someone named Theophilus, were the basis of Paul's defense and appeal to Caesar.

(...in order for testimony of a miracle to be believed...)

you have to trust or distrust the credibility of eye witnesses thereof. When eyewitnesses testify, it is assumed in any court of law, that these witnesses are telling the TRUTH. It is incumbent upon the opposing party to bring forth evidence why the witnesses should be doubted. Therefore, if this debate were taking place in a court of law, YOU would have to provide evidence that the witnesses are liars or are deceived.

One of these eyewitnesses, the apostle Peter wrote this:

2Peter 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Peter 1:17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"
2Peter 1:18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.

Peter was not talking about hearsay or secondhand information, but is testifying to what he actually saw and heard really happening.

Anyone who does not want to believe, will not believe even if confronted with eyewitnesses to the truth. The people who crucified Jesus Christ saw his deeds, even extending to the raising of the dead, but still did not believe that he is the Messiah.

....It doesn't offer evidence....

It depends on what you consider valid evidence. Simon Greenleaf, one of the founders of Harvard University Law school, wrote a huge volume, still in use in all courts and lawyers offices today, on the rules of evidence in jurisprudence. These rules are still in force in every court of our land. He applied these rules to the Gospels, four books of the Bible, to determine if the evidence therein would hold up in a court of law. You can read his thoughts on the matter here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

This is where, hopefully, Jury Nullification of Law would come into play. Judges and Prosecutors prevent jury pool from being informed of their right to disagree with the judge and the Rule of Law.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

http://fija.org/

How about this: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html

ASCAP files suit agains the Boy Scounts and Girl Scouts.

""They buy paper, twine and glue for their crafts - they can pay for the music, too," says John Lo Frumento, ASCAP's chief operating officer. If offenders keep singing without paying, he says, we will sue them if necessary." "

Songs on the list include "God Bless America" and "This Land is Your Land".

DIAF, ASCAP!

The guy needs to contact the EFF himself. They don't often just pick up cases because they get reported on Slashdot. They might take a look if he contacts them though. It doesn't take much effort to do so: http://www.eff.org/about/contact

Incidentally, the ASCAP has a long history of doing dumb stuff. Back in the mid 1990s they got a lot of public flack for trying to sue the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html

Well Scopes was more than 80 years ago, so you can't put a 30 year cut off on the religion argument.

Considering that this country was founded by religious refugees, and considering that historically, we've always been slower to adopt scientific theories than most other first world countries, it's certainly a plausible argument.

Frankly I think our scientific glory days are more about the waves of educated immigrants we got in the last century due to the unrest in europe (WWI, WWII, the Cold War) than in any native virtue that we had and somehow lost.

Until we start pushing actual critical thought as part of our curriculum instead of trivia and shortcuts, we're never going to have a world class educational program.

You missed the entire point. Did the police say "we have arrested someone for the murders" or did they say "we have arrested OJ Simpson"? Did they televise and broadcast the trial, even though at that point he had not been found guilty?

I think you know the answers to this. I'm also very puzzled by you asking "when did they release evidence to the public?" The answer is before the trial. LOTS of evidence was released and police made statements keeping the public informed of the state of the case. The prosecutor didn't release as much as the police did, but release they did.

Two examples:

OJ's Statement to the LAPD
November 29, 1994 issue of STAR

Prosecutors say the results of DNA tests done on samples found at the crime site and at Mr. Simpson's Brentwood estate convincingly identify him as the killer.
Thursday, January 23, 1995

The trial began on January 25, 1995, btw. So does that satisfy your request? It's even specifically about the DNA test. I would try to track down more for you, but have you ever tried to google for just stuff written before the Simpson trial? It's a pain.

It's off the subject, but the reason they failed to convict Simpson was pure bungling on the prosecutor's side combined with the fact that OJ being a well-liked celebrity could help but prejudice the jury.

Anyhow, this is all actually much more similar to the Rodney King beating. The videotape in that case is a direct parallel to the torture tapes and photos. The videotape shows what it shows. People should be able to view it and judge for themselves. It's even more applicable because they were never able to meet the legal standard to convict the police officers of anything. But it was very important that the public saw the video so they could judge for themselves.

If he is not thinking that far ahead he is a dolt. So either a liar, a bigot a dolt or a combination of all three. Thanks for adding that last one. Now its a false trichotomy.

By the way, the reason I know this is because every single law review journal for the past 10 years has been talking about it. From constitutional law to workplace law to public policy and human rights it touches on too many issues for a lawyer anywhere especially one running for president to be unawares. Civil unions have been considered a backdoor to gay marriage for awhile, you just watch those court cases in California and elsewhere end up in the supreme court in a few years and they will win just as surely as the ban on interracial marriage was struck down. Obama indeed might of wanted this to happen but that does not excuse his lack of candor on this issue, because it calls into question all of his other publicly held views.
   

Why everyone in Human Resources should be fired.
What is the most important job for the government, which
'belongs' to all of us?
Counter-Espionage, yet FBI hired and promoted Robert Hanssen.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,221911,00.html
Personality tests and even Polygraph Tests are lazy crutches
for Human Resources.
http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml
Is this an historical pattern of Non-scientific methods and magic?
Salem Witch Trials
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/salem.htm
In the Civil War, the North had the big advantage of money (all the
gold was in New York City), factories, naval blockade, large armies.
What General did Abraham Lincoln Hire That ALMOST LOST THE WAR?
General George McClellan was ill for a time, which further delayed his action, but on his return he continued to find reasons not to move forward. Frustrated, Lincoln at one point sent General McClellan a note asking whether, if the general did not plan to use his army, he, Lincoln, might borrow it.
What did the Washington HUMAN RESOURCES think of General Grant, who
eventually WON THE WAR?
        General U. S. Grant, graduate of West Point was a DRUNKARD
and had been cashiered from the Army because of that problem.
Even after his convincing victories at Forts Henry, Donelson, and at the Battle of Shiloh, there were still grave doubts in Washington about his competence.
Would Einstein have been hired when he had few references?
        Einstein tried to 'argue with his professors.'
Please, the following is a joke, FICTIONAL humor.
Would MOST Human Resources have been hired after passing a STRICT MENSA TEST (high IQ) and programming test?
Human Resources is in charge of salaries and EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.
Almost ALL OF HUMAN RESOURCES at HR Conferences say ethics is VERY IMPORTANT,
yet they may be hypocritical?
stock option manipulation
http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/010282.html
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/18/technology/monster_options/index.htm

....In case you missed it, I think God is a concept, not a being...

Well, either your opinion is valid or Moses who talked to God. He asked God what his name was that he should tell the people. God replied: I am, tell them that "I AM" sent you. That expression is related to the word to be and that therefore makes God a being, not merely a concept.

Jesus claimed to be God come to earth. Jesus was very much a living person, just as you are. He proved his claim to deity by rising from the dead after being executed in a most cruel way. You can say that you don't believe that, but you cannot say that it did not happen exactly as it is chronicled by eyewitnesses. Human courts generally give very high weight to the testimony of eyewitnesses. Those opposed to this testimony have tried, yet failed, for almost 2000 years now, to discredit the written legal deposition of what these witnesses saw, heard and experienced.

One of the founders of Harvard Law School has carefully examined this written evidence by the standards all courts of law operate and found no way to discredit the testimony. If you want to read what he wrote, go here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

Many today put forth the idea that there is no truth. Maybe you are one of the relatively few who disagrees with that and is still interested in truth.

By that rationale, Firefox's UI is shite since there isn't a print button on the toolbar by default.

Click the big circle button in the top left corner.

....that a central fixture of Christianity was faith, that is belief without evidence....

There is a lot of internal evidence of prophecy in the Bible, but you seem to dismiss it out of hand. The Bible is not a book that was put together in a few months or a few years by a single human being. Its scripts were put down over time span of about 1500 years by at least 40 different writers. Even so, it has a remarkable consistency.

If you are really interested in evidence for the truth of the Christian gospel, you may take the time to read the article and the following link:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

The author of this article, was a legal scholar, one of the founders of the Harvard Law school. Before reading the above article, you may want to check out the credentials of this man as given in the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Greenleaf

(...Scientific facts that were undiscovered at the time would be pretty good too...)

Most scholars agree that the book of Job is the oldest of the collection of books we now call the Bible. In chapters 38-42 God talks to Job, giving him a science quiz. In the 5000 years or so since job lived, humans have discovered the answers to many of these questions. Even so, there are a number of questions that are still as unanswered today as they were back then. When these questions among many gives a scientific insight into modern astronomical knowledge. In chapter 38:31 God asked Job: "Can you bind the bands of the Pleiades, or loosen the cords of Orion?" These two constellations happen to be gravitationally linked together, while all others simply appear that way in the sky from the viewpoint of the earth.

Earlier in the book, in chapter 26:7 we read He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing. How did Job know this, contrary to the prevailing wisdom of the wise and educated to this day? If you have not ever read this book, or have not read it recently, you might do so. If you do not have the time or inclination for this, you might review the rather good Wikipedia article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job

Please look into the well-established concept of "case law" before parading your own ignorance around in a public forum. I'd suggest reading http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html for a start. If the words there have too many syllables for you, try http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm

The sun is the center of the universe? I though the sun orbited the Milkey [sic] Way Galaxy's central black hole?

At the time of Copernicus the ancient Greeks were considered the last word on all things concerning nature and they belived the earth was the center of everything. You can't really blame Copernicus for not being aware of galaxies and black holes, or quantum mechanics or lasers or all that other stuff that was discovered hundreds of years after him.

can an object of infinite size even HAVE a center?

It is believed that the universe has a finite size.

You could construct an accurately moving model of the solar system, have the earth as the center, and still have it be accurate.

Nope, they tried that already. Having the earth at the center of a model of the solar system required having all sorts of ugly planetary epicycles and such and pretty much didn't work as observations got better.

I'm going to have to reread Genesis. I don't recall seeing anywhere where it says the earth is the center of anything, let alone the universe.

Actually Genesis has more than one description of the origins of the world (1:1-2:3 and 2:4b-2:25). It was assumed that since the earth is created first in the bible that it was the center of things.

Okay, I've heard of an income tax that's the same percentage for all income levels instead of being progressive as being called a "fair tax".

Second, I was aware of the history of the name changes and the case, I was making a joke when I said "whatever it's called this week."

I wasn't aware of any name change but while checking the name I did come across the case, or a related one, as being called after Gonzalez.

Third, it's not me that argues the commerce clauses gives them that ability, it was the majority of SCOTUS that did

You also said it was idiot to disagree with the ruling, yet 3 of the Justices did disagree.

I happen to agree that the commerce clause *ought* to be interpreted broadly.

Reading papers left by some of the Founding Fathers, specifically Thomas Jefferson and James Madison come to mind, the Constitution is to be taken quite narrowly in meaning, both were for limited government but a broad interpretation gives government any power it wants. And Madison was a principle writer of the Constitution. I happen to agree with them, as I say above it not interpreting it narrowly gives the government any power it wants. So, what powers the Constitution does not explicitly give the federal government it does not have to power to do. That's why a way to amend the Constitution was written into it.

Falcon